Parmjatinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.

The appellant was tried and convicted by Shri M.S. Lobana, Special Judge, Patiala, for offence under section 5(1)(c) read with subsection 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act''), and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default of payment thereof to farther undergo six months, rigorous imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal.

In brief. the facts of the prosecution case are that the accused was working as Sectional Officer Irrigation under Amrik Singh (P.W.2) in the Remodelling Sub Division, Patiala and entrusted with the modelling work of, bridges and falls etc along the Ghaggar Branch Canal from R.D. No. 134265 to R.D. N. 135000 in the area of village Sular. On 4th February, 1981, the accused submitted an indent Ex. PB for supply of 205 bags of cement from the Sunam Store manned by Shri R.C. Sharma. Sectional Officer. He obtained the cement after the indent was approved by Shri Amrik Singh. Sub Divisional Officer. The accused signed the report Ex PB/l, receipt in token of the delivery of these bags of cement for taking to the site of work at Sular. It is noteworthy that Sular falls at a distance of 12/13 Kms by direct road and is 18 Kms by Chowk Mehlan road while Patiala is it a distance of 65 Kms. both from Sunam and Sular. These bage were entrusted to Inder Singh (P.W. 11) to be carried in his truck No PUP 4571 to Patiala instead of Sular vide goods receipt Ex PK/1 bv the accused. On the night intervening 4th/5th February, 1981. Inspector Vigilance, Patiala, Shri Didar Singh (P.W. 14) received secret information about these bags having been brought by the accused to his house under construction at Patiala. Taking this information to be credible, he sent Ruqa Ex. PH to Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala at 6.15 A M. for registration of a case under Section 5 of the Act, on the basis of which formal first information report Ex. PH/l was recorded by Baldev Singh (P W 4) This Inspector then associated Vigilance Inspector, besides other police officials Baladev Singh (P.W. 1) and. Ram Sarup were joined from the locality where the house of accused was situated and this party then recovered 205 bags of cement from the house search of the accused. These bags were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PA which was arrested by the said P.Ws. The rough siteplan, Ex. PR of the spot was also prepared besides the recording of the statements of the said witnesses The goods receipt book Ex P.I. containing the carbon copy of goods receipt Ex. PR/2 and the indent book were also taken into possession during the investigation. After the collection of all the relevant evidence. sanction Ex. PQ was obtained from the Superintending Engineer and the accused was put to trial on the said allegation by submitting the charge sheet before the Special Judge, Patiala.

The trial Court believing the evidence of Baldev Singh (P.W.1), Inspector Vigilance, Didar Singh. Inspector (P.W.14) and Santokh Singh, Vigilance Inspector. (P.W. 12) regarding the actual recovery of the cement from the house of the accused, besides the corroborative evidence of Amrik Singh (P.W. 2) and Gurdev Singh. A.S.I. (P.W. 3) and the other witnesses, convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above, The version of the accused appellant before the trial Court that Inder Singh driver of the truck had taken his truck to Patiala first, as 50 bags of cement were to be delivered to Harjit Singh. Jasbir Singh and Amarjit Singh employees of the said department, or that the truck was apprehended by the police near the octroi post on 4th February, 1981. did not find favour with the trial Court, even though Gurmit Singh (D W 1) supported the version of the accused that he had accompanied the latter to the police station on learning about the apprehension of the truck.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Inderpal Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, besides perusing the record. The testimony of Baldev Singh (P.W.1), Inspector Santokh Singh (P.W.12) and Inspector Didar Singh (P.W. 14), clearly establishes the recovery of 205 bags of cement from the house of the accused at Patiala, which was still under construction. The testimony of Surat Singh (P.W. 10) a building contractor of that house also shows that due to the nonavailability of cement, the construction work was stopped after about 5 or 6 months. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant about Baldev Singh (P.W.1) being inimical towards the accused, due to damaging of Chari crop while laying the foundations of his house as admitted by Sprat Singh (P.W. 10) and alleged by the accused. Baldev Singh (P.W. 1) frankly conceded that he had sown Jawar crop in the land on which the wife of the accused had started the construction of the house but explained that he had harvested the crop before the digging of the foundation. It appears that Surat Singh (P.W. 10) had a soft corner for the accused. and that is why be had not supported his earlier version contained in the statement before the police. He was allowed to be crossexamined by the learned Public Prosecutor and confronted with his earlier version. Obviously, be being working as a contractor of this house under the accused, he must be under his influence. and, thus, his admission in this regard is of no consequence, especially when, it is not the case of the accused that Baldev Singh resorted to any criminal or civil action against him regarding the damage to his crop. Baldev Singh, P.W. is a resident of that very locality where the place of recovery is located and so is Ram Sarup witness, who was given up by the prosecution as having been won over. No adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for not examining Ram Sarup as a witness,, as his evidence was not essential to unfold the prosecution case. Thus the findings of the Supreme court in Bir Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 59 in this regard are of no help to the appellant. Moreover, Inspector Santokh Singh, Inspector Didar Singh and Baldev Singh have no motive to falsely implicate the accused.

The version of the accused and Inder Singh (P.W.1) driver of the said truck that it was taken to Patiala first, as 50 bags of cement were to be delivered to Harjit Singh, Jasbir Singh and Amarjit Singh Or that it was apprehended from near the octroi post on 4th February 1981, is belied by the circumstantial as well as by the direct evidence. No doubt the aforesaid three persons who are employees of the Irrigation Department had deposited advance money for obtaining some cement in the near 1980 and could be supplied cement from any consignment but in view of the factum that the accused had obtained this cement on the basis of indent for a particular purpose, it cannot be said that he was at liberty to supply the cement to any employee of the department what to say to these person especially when the canal was closed about one month prior to the present occurrence for the completion of the work of bridges and falls and here was paucity of cement according to Amrik Singh (P.W.). The matter does not rest here as the perusal of the goods receipt Ex. PK/1 and its carbon copy Ex. PK/2 reveal that the cement was booked by the accused from Sunam to Patiala on the truck bearing Registration No. PUP 4571 driven by Inder Singh driver The accused had admitted having, hired this truck for carrying the cement. If actually the cement was to be carried to Sular, then in the goods receipt or bilty the destination of the cement at Sular must have figured, because Sular falls at a distance of 12/13 Kms. from Sunam by direct route and 18 Kms. through a road running along with the Chowk Mehlan road while Patiala falls at a distance of 65 Kms from Sunam as well as from Sular. Thus, there was no sense in carrying the cement first to Patiala and then to Sular after covering a distance of 130 Kms., especially when there is no evidence that the road connecting Sunam with Sular via Chowk Mehlan was out of order. Under these circumstances, it can be well inferred that the accused intended to misappropriate these bags of cement from the very inception of taking its delivery at Sunam and that is why he had, straightaway hired the truck for carrying the same to Patiala and not to Sular where it was to be utilised in the construction of bridges and falls and there is facility of temporary storage of cement at Sular. In the face of this overwhelming oral and documentary evidence, the belated version of the accused or of Inder Singh (P.W. 11) driver of the truck or of Gurmit Singh (D.W1) to the effect that the truck was apprehended from the octroi post on 4th February, 1981 and taken to the police station by the police, is of no consequence. Moreover, the accused was bound to agitate this matter with the higher Authorities in writing that the truck was apprehended from near the octroi post and that he was falsely implicated in this case. Strange enough, he had not even alleged having done so. Thus the above referred version of the accused saw the light of the day for the first time during the trial. Under these circumstances, the trial Court rightly discarded this belated version of the accused.

There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that due to nonestablishing the identity of the bags of cement the conviction of the accused is not sustainable as the recovery of 205 bags of cement on the following night of its receipt by the accused and the evidence of Baldev Singh P.W. having seen unloading of the cement from the above referred truck on the evening of 4th February, 1981, clearly establish this fact. Moreover, the accused had not alleged that this cement belonged to him, what to say of proving that he had purchased this cement from the open market. Thus, he cannot be allowed to create a new version at the appellate stage.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused could have changed his mind before the actual misappropriation of the cement and that no offence is made out, as the stacking of the cement at his house was only a preparation towards its misappropriation, is also not tenable as the very act of unloading the cement at the site of the house under construction belonging to the wife of the accused at Patiala, situated at 65 Kms away from Sular is itself a circumstance that the accused had done so with the intention of misappropriating it.

There is no force in the last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the sanction, Ex. PQ for the prosecution of the accused was not duly proved due to nonexamination of Shri Tarlochan Singh, Superintending Engineer. As the evidence of Shan Singh, (PW 13) Circle Superintendent of the office of Chief Engineer, Patiala, clearly establishes that the sanction, Ex. PQ bears the signatures of aforesaid Tarlochan Singh. As he was in a position to identify the signatures, though not as a hand writing expert, as he was working under him. The bare perusal of this sanction, Ex. PQ absolutely leaves no doubt about the application of the mind by the Superintendenting Engineer before according this sanction for the prosecution of the accused. Thus the findings of the Supreme Court in P.C. Joshi and another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1961(1) Cri. L.J. 566 to the effect that the sanction must depict the application of the mind of the sanctioning Authority, are of no help to the Present appellant.

The sentence of two years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months awarded by the trial Court cannot be said to be on the harsh side in view of the circumstances of the case which reveal that the accused had embezzled a huge, quantity of cement after due preparation.

For the foregoing reasons there is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.